Wever Labs Agentic Rails

Reputation dispute check

wever_reputation-dispute-check

Read-only

Agent Reputation: submit how one reputation record handles disputes: each dispute the record shows with its id, job, when it was opened, its status (open, resolved or withdrawn), its outcome (for the agent, for the counterparty, split, refunded or withdrawn) and when it was resolved; the disputes on file in the dispute log, escrow or platform records the record draws on, in the same shape; the dispute counts the record states (total, open and resolved); and how much each kind of dispute moves the score (open, resolved for the agent, resolved against it and withdrawn). The signed report matches every dispute shown to the log and counts the disputes shown by status, and names concealment: disputes on file missing from the record, disputes shown without their outcomes, statuses or outcomes shown differently from the log and resolved disputes counted the same as open ones, then stated counts that differ from the disputes shown, undated disputes and resolutions and disputes linked to no job, with the fix for each. One Wever dispute with its signed receipt chain is wever_dispute-status, incident claims against their timeline are wever_incident-evidence-check and the record’s own entries and totals are wever_reputation-record-check. Verdict disputes_concealed, dispute_gaps, disputes_unverified or disputes_disclosed. POST /api/reputation-dispute-check. Reads only the material in the call: no network request, fetch, money movement, message, sharing, configuration change or external write. Paid URL: 0.10 USDC per call on Base via x402 exact, with the shared 10 signed-wallet free calls per rolling 30 days. Bind X-Wever-Wallet-Proof to the exact JSON arguments and the tool route. Returns a report with an Ed25519 signed receipt. Contract: /api/agent-reputation-contract. Human page: https://weverlabs.com/agent-reputation/.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "shown": "<shown>"
    },
    "name": "wever_reputation-dispute-check"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`label`	No	Optional name recorded in the report.
`shown`	Yes	Each dispute as the record shows it.
`on_file`	No	Each dispute in the dispute log, escrow or platform records the record draws on.
`summary`	No
`counting`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

AddedNov 10, 2026

TDQS

A4.4/5.0

Behavior4/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Beyond the read-only annotations, it discloses the payment model (0.10 USDC per call on Base via x402 exact), the ten free signed-wallet calls per rolling 30 days, the required X-Wever-Wallet-Proof binding to the exact JSON arguments and route, and the Ed25519 signed receipt returned with the report. It also spells out the read-only guarantee by enumerating what it does not do (no fetch, money movement, sharing, external write). The only gap is that it does not say whether repeated identical calls produce distinct receipts, despite idempotentHint=false.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness3/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Purpose and scope are front-loaded, and the later sentences on alternatives, payment, and verdicts are each load-bearing. However, the opening is a single semicolon-chained mega-sentence that is hard to parse, and the report-contents sentence is bloated with an exhaustive list that could be compressed.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With no output schema, the description carries the return-value burden and does so by listing the four verdict values and stating that a signed report with an Ed25519 receipt is returned, plus a contract link. For a nested-object, multi-input verification tool this is close to complete; only the exact report fields and the meaning of the free-call counter's reset are left implicit.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

At 60% schema coverage, the description materially compensates: it explains that 'shown' is what the record displays versus 'on_file' being the dispute log, escrow or platform records the record draws on, and that 'counting' is how much each dispute kind moves the score (e.g. -1 for open). The allowed status and outcome values and the count fields are largely restated from the schema, so it adds meaning but not uniformly across all five parameters.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description opens with a specific verb-and-resource framing: submit how one reputation record handles disputes, and then enumerates exactly what is checked (shown disputes, on-file disputes, stated counts, counting weights). It explicitly separates itself from three named siblings, so an agent can distinguish it without opening any schema.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines5/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Alternatives are named with the condition that selects them: a single Wever dispute with its signed receipt chain goes to wever_dispute-status, incident claims go to wever_incident-evidence-check, and the record's own entries and totals go to wever_reputation-record-check. That is a direct routing table, not just implied scope.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

All Wever Labs Agentic Rails tools Inspect

Try in Browser

One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources

Need Help?